DOCUMENT RESUME CS 05 695 ED 199 615 I
AUTHOR Feies; Fred TITt4( The TheOry" of Media Imperialism: Some comments. PUB dATE Wug 90 NOTE 24p.: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism 463rd,
, Boston, MA, August 9-13, 1990).
EDRS.PRICE fP01/PC01 Plus Postage. . DESCRIPTORS\ *Communication Crhought-fTtansferi; *CommunicationS: *Cultural Awarenessv 011tureil Differences: Developed Nations: Developing Nations: *International Relations: Mass Media:'*fledia Research; *Neys Political Attitudes: Research Needs: Theories IDENTIFIERS *Media Imperialism
ABSTRACT This paper describeR the media imperialism approach to the study of internatioeal comiunications, which focuses on the processes by which moderncomm.unicatiOns media have operated to create, maintain, and expand systems of domination and dependency on a world-wide scale. To provide soMetheoretical baqis for the media imperialism approAch, the'paper presents a brief overview of the , dependency model,_ which analyzes Third World ftvelopmentalproblems in terms of an analysis of the relationships between developed and developing nations. Rased on this discussion,:new directions for research for media' imperiialism are outlined. In particular, the paper calls tor research on factors and fqrces operating on i national level to coxplement research on international factors, for formulatAon of the cultdral issues involved in media imperialism, and for expanded research of non-mass media forms ofcommunication; In -7- conclusion, the paper ariiies that itf the formulation 'of a theoretical appribach to the study of media imRerialism, .the concepX of theory preValent in most areas of the soeial sciences is inadequate and that bioader concept of theory should be used.(Althor/FL)
****************************$****************************************** ReprodUCtions supplied4by EDRS Are the best, that .can be made *
* . \from the original dwument. ********************************************************************0* 46.
11 II/ I'AIIIA111 NI Of III Al III Vt1t AI ill/A k P AR! NA 1 .1,NAl 'NS I 11111 I. UI I Ow A I [(IN
vo v I I.511,11.1.'11
',11'11. 1 ,PJ I ,, , , N
The 'Theory' of Media Impdrialisme:
Some Comments
PERMISSION 10 REPRODUCt 1 HIS MATERIAL. HAS.BEEN GRANTED BY
frod_rejes
TO I HE FOUCATIO.NAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) . Fred Fejes Institute of Communica ions Re earch 222B Armory University of IllinOi Champaign, IL 618
-
:!) N. \ Presentet toa joint panel of the Qualitative Studiei and luteational Divisidse at the Asseciation for Educationin Journalism Annual Convention in Boston, MA, August 10-13, 1980. Within the last ten years, the view or what is important in global
communications and of the role modern comininications play in the development
of Third World countries has undergone a drastic change. While during the
1960. communication resoachere focused on ways in which modern media could
asit in the social development of the nations of Africa, Latin America and
Asti, this last decade has witnessed the emergence of an approach to the
study of communications and development which has, in many important
senses, an entirely different perspective and evaluation of the role of
modern communications. Although there is by no means complete agrement,
the term "media imperialism" le frequently used to describe the concern.
of this new approach. While there have been several attempts to give this
term some conceptual precision, distinguishing it, for example, from the
broader concept of "cultural imperialimm" (Boyd-Barret, 1977), or
attempting to define it in terms of levels of generality (Leo, 1978),'or
in terms of specific media and nations (Tunstall, 1977), on the whole it
still remains vague as an analytical concept. That being the case then,
for the purposes of this discussion, media imperialism shall be used in a
broad and general manner to describe the processes by which modern communi-
cation media have operated to create, maintain and expand systems of dolination
and dependence on s world scale. Similiarly, recent communication research
efforts which attempt to study these processes shall,be termed collectively
the "media imperialism approach."While some may object Otat such a deoligdm-
tion is, on the one hand, too arbitrary and, on the other, too brood end general
to be of much use, hopefully the purpose and necessity of making such an initially crude and rough attempt at labelling of a body of work shall
3 bt!k(IMic iAatti hi the c.Ouillitl 01
As has been noted by orhern (NotdentItteng And Schillev, 1979; Cruino
O'Brien, 1979), the modia imperialism approach evolved in an attempt to
deal with those questions and arena of concern which earlier communication models and thinking generally ignored. In contrast to earlier models which
focused on the national level and on social psychological factors in order 0 to determine the ways in which modern communications media could help accelerate the process of development and modernization, the media
imperialism approach is based on "an emphasis on global structure, whereby
it is precisely the international socio-political ysteill that decisively determines the course of development within the sphere of each nation"
(Nordenstreng and Schiller, 1979:7). Whereas earlier models viewed modern communications media as a "tool" for development, the media AMperialiem
, approach viewed the media, situated as they were in a traasnational context, as an obstacle to anymeaningful and well-balanced soc$O-ecOnomic progress that a country ma, attempt to achieve. Seen in a lerger context, the growth of the media imperialism approach is one.reflectSon of the general critical assessment and rejection by many Third World gountries of Western models of growth and development of which th, eaTliev/communication models were a part. The appearance of the mediaimpertelism approachwas matched on the level of international politirby t 'call by many Third World natidhs for the restructuring of global cOmmucation relationsh6s and flow in order to create a "New International formation Order"-as an essential component of a "New International Scott c Order." iTheMA i Or t hrunt and great ent a et:ompl i aliment of 1 he %,Pork undert nken-
within 1.11e. media 'imperialism apploach so far hap been an empitical Qeacription 4
4 'Of the manner in whi.ch communleattonn media operate on a global level. As
reflected, for example, In workn by Schiller (1971), Mattelart (1979),
Varin (1973), and other%, the research in this area on the wholl tends to
focus on the operation of transnational agents, either transnational &yr-
porations or transnational media induatrirs, and their role in the
structuring and flow of media producta at an .international level. Sugh
, attempt to dascribe in detail'the manner in which sulih transnational
ta.dominate the inteationalrn structure and flow of commonications.
'worksle attention has been focused ou. mass media products such as television
and film, other aspects-and areas of communpations such as advertising,
satellite communications, educational television and media practices have
been examined.
While at the empirical level as represented by such atudies, there has
been much progress dealing with the concerns of media hmperialism, such
L, progress has notbeet matchedAt the theoretical level (Mosco and Herman,
1979: Subv:\ti, 1079), Although there has been individual attempts to formulate
and analyse vediaimperiaii.smas a "theory" (Boyds-Barret, 1977; Lee, 1978),
on the whole the development of media imperialism as a.theoretical approach,
in contrast to empirical descriptions of concrete examples of media *. imperialism, has not formed an impoaant element o the agenda of work in,
this area. While the reasons for the lack of theoretical development are
meny and varied, it would seem that one majovi reason is ihat the work on
media imperialism, much like the work done in other areas of communidation
rosearch, is linked tO the concerns'of communication professioneas, activists 4. and policy-makers and to current preening insueo, in this cane the inter- , national debate over imbalances In the international comnamication structuto and flow. There is, of course, no inherent. reason why nuch clone links between researCh and critical contemporary problems should inhibit the development of theory. There are numerous examples in the aocial sciences where a practical concern, often with a very narrow and sometimes even insignificant question, has led to profound theoretical devetOpments.
Monethe1e90,in the case of the media imperialism approach At seems that pressing practical anll political concerns have not yet led to any broader theoretical outcomes.
This, of course, should not Imply that the empirical progr6es achieved thus far is of any less value. In contrast to thb common complaint that radical and critical researchers and'scholars overemphastze the development L of a theoretical exactness to the point of irrelevance, the work done on media imperialism, because of its empirical nature', has been eminently. clear,_ac cessible and relevant, characteristics which accoun t for the dissemination of its ideas over a wide audience. Nonetheless, it must be' recognized that the lack of an explicit and well foi.mulated theoretical basis involvesdangers. Without any type of accepted theoretical frpmework, one is unable to formulate -a research agenda, distinguishirg th e.questions and issues that are important and need to be pursued from those less iMpoytant or that have been over-studied, thus moving the field in general from mere replication of previous work to the breaking of new grounds.
Without the development of_theory, one finds it much more difficult, on the one hendi to abstract from an empirical study thosegeneral: ideas'that could be applied to a whole different set of data, or, on the other hand, to set
6
4. the limits of explanation, to designatc what the concept otimedia
imperialism does not explain. Without theory, thet14 is the danger of media
611Aimperialism becoming a pseudo-concept, something whichcan be us to explain
14.4. everything in general about the media in developing countries andnence 4 nothing in particular. Finally, without theory, there is lacking the
critical standpoint and set of standards and cotvepts by whichone can judge
and evaluaie the researcefforts which deal with the issues raised by this
approach. A good example of this last point is William Read's study
America's Mass Madia Merchants (1976). As an empirical work the subject of
this study - the expansion of. American media overseas within the
concerns of the media imperialism approach. But the study's overall purpose
and conclusion to demonstrate that "through the market pAce system by
which Amecrica's mass media merchants communicate with foreignconsumers,
both parties eftjoy different, but,useful benefits: (Read, 1976:181) is
diametrically oPposed to the central thrust of the previous work done in
this area. Read's study aptly demonstrates how, lackingan explicit
theor4tica1 foundation, the critical outlook that motivated the earlyprogress \ of this approach can be diluted and itsconcerns coopted.
To oay, however, that media imperialism researchers lacka developed
theory does not mean that they do not work within,the context ofsome under- , lying theoretical Concepts and notions. In one sense the research on media
imperialism can be situated within the broad tradition of a marxist critique of capitalism in that in the global growth of western communications med14
researchers see a reflettion of the general' imperialist expansion, ofwestern
capitaliat sociaties. Yet it is mistaken to label. this approach "marxist") in any detailed and precise fense of the word. While some researchers
I I. identify themaelveu explicitly a:1 mar7xinta and coancionnlyattempt to
develop a specifically marxist analysis of media Imperialism, othersdo not.
While the motivation and noun-en .bellirui the workon media imperialism
are varied, such work perhaps can be best understood both asa research
approach and as a theoretical endeavor by putting itin the larger context
of the work and thinking doneon the questions and problems of Third World
development in general over the past decade. Earlier models of the role
of Ct6munications in the developmentalprocess of course were formulated
in the context of more general models of developmentthat defined the entire
process as one of "modernization." Within the last ten years, however, such general models have been challenged by a radically different view ofthe development process. The new view has been generally termed the dependency model. The impact and success of the dependency model in reshaping thinking apd work on Third World development hasbeen so fundamental that same commentators see in the emergence of this new model and its replacement of earlier notions of development an example ofa kuhnian social scientific revolution (Valnezuela and Valenzuela, 1979). As the emergence and growth of the media imperialism approachcan be seen as one aspect of the larger change in development thinking that has occurred with the appearance-ofthe dependency model, some_of the basic theoretical notions that underliethe media imperialism approach can be best articulated and understoodby presenting a btief overview of the jor points of the dependency model.
While the history of the dependency model anda detailed e)position of its argument hes beeh presented elsewhere (see Chilcoteand Edelstein,
1974; Portes, 1976, Cardoso, 1977; Valenzuela and Valenzuela,1979),_it is important to note that the dependen models is significantlY differentv 1.
with regards both to its intellectual origins ond itsanalysis 01the
problems of develerOftent than prior theories of modernization. In contrast
to such earlier theories which wereformulated in research institutions in
the countries of Europe and North America and which werebased on the
experice of industrialization of these countries,the dependency model
was initially formulated by a groupof Latin American sociologists and
economists to explsin the failure of previous developmentstrategies in 4 Latin America.
While the modernization theories focused on the internal processesof
development and of the role of social values, the dependencytheory proceed*
from an analysis of the relationships between developed andunderdeveloped
countries and examines the developmental problems ofthe Third World in
terms of these relationships. Its major conclusion is that the Third World
dountries occupy a subordinate position in the international economic and
political systems whil are seen as being structuredprimaiily according to
the needs of the derloped countries. Developed countries maintain their
dominant position and continue their own proce s of development atthe
expense of the-developmental needs ofthe Thir,., World countries. The
penetration Of Third World countries by multinationalcorporations, qe
political objectives and foreign aid policies of developedcountries, the
subordinate position-of Third World countries in the international market
and credit system, all are seen as aspects of thisdependenCy phenomenon.
Just as important, dependency relationships are ,seen asreproducing them-
selves in the structure of intesnal relationships. Underdeveloped countries
are seen as being polarizedbetween the urban sector, whose interests are
often allied with_the developed countries, and the rural sectorwhich exists
150
4 8.
in an exploitative relntionshtp to the urbansecLor. AH a renult of this
overall structure of dependency, Third World countrienare seen as having
lirtie chance of achieving self-sustained internalgrowth or modernization
in the Western sensqkas preaumed by the previous developmental models.
Indeed an Third World countries remsin withinthin system over time they
encounter increasingly serious internal difficulties anda deterioration
of their position in intvnational trade andfinance.
As is evident, the dependency4model presentsa view of development
and of the problems of Third World countriesthat is fundamentally different
from previousmoderLzationmodels. ThisAdifference reflects the fact that
earlier theories of modernizationcan be viewed as by-products of classical A Western social theory which stressed the evolUtionary,nature of the social developmental process and role of ideas and values. The dependency model, in contrast, can be seen asa clinterpart of earlier,°.theories of\imperialism, partizularly the marxist-leninistconcept of imperialism, reformulaeed from the point of view of the underdevelopedcoUntries (Portes, 1976).
The implications of dependency modelsare likewise.radically difierent.
Effective national developmentcomes to be interpreted as the-"liberation fram dependency," a concept which couldmean anything from the formation of Third yorld raw material cartelsto revolutions of national liberation.
In any event, the generally optimisticpicture which was presented by i previous theories of modernization and whichassumed,a basic mutuality of interest between developed and Third World countrieshas been confronted by an alternative theory of development' thatpresents a pessimistic view. of development and is basedon a conflictual model of the world system.
Aside from,the major elements of the dependencyapproach presented
10 9.
tn this brief overview, itis Important to ntresn qome Additional aspects
of the dependency model, aspects which are of direct relevance to an
understk9ding and assessment of the work done under the media hnperialism
approach. Firat, rather than being a set ol propositions that are univer-
sally valid, the dependency approach is based on an aNilysis of the
partiular historical context of dependent societies. The relationships
of dependency can only be understood in the context of concrete historical
situations. This then requires that an analysis be based on an examination
of the specific historical forces and factors inrolved in a nation's
incorporation into and situation within a system of extra-national relation-
ships. Thus, in an attempt to understand the notion of dependency, one
must be wary of talktng about dependent societies or the relationships of
dependency in general without specifying,the concrete historical situation
in which societies and relationshilm exist (Villamil, 1979),
A second important aspect of the dependency analysis is.its emphasis
on the role of extra-national forces and factors that create and support
the maintainence of underdevelopment in the Third World. Particular
importance is laid on the role that transnational corpora ions play in
Third World countries (Sunkel and Fuenzalida, 1979). Yet, while in the present stage of the capitalist world economy, the transnational corpor- ations are the dominant institution, the dependent condition of a particular nation -cannot be regarded only in.terms of the domination by transnational interests and other external forces and ?actors. The condition of dependency involves the dynamic relationship between internal factors.such as a nation's class structure and history and external factors such as transnational corporations, international financial institutidns and soon. .31 11 10.
Dependency analysis is ennentially a dialectical analysis whichotfenues
the complex manyr in which internal and external factotaoperate over ttme.
Underdevelopment and dependency are not simply the fesnit of "external
constraints" on peripheral nocieties,nor can dependency be operationalized
solely with reference to extvrnal factors (Valenznela and Valenzuels,1979).
Fernando Car'doso, one of the major figures of the dependency School,has
noted that in the diasemination of the dependency model, particularlyIn
the United States, the attentian to eXternal variables "the intervnetion
of-the CIA in foreign policy, the invisible and Machiavellian handof the
multinationals, etc." while justified and necessary, has come to assume
priority over an understanding of the specific and historicallysituated
internal factors that operate in the maintenanceof the dependent status
of peripheral aocieties (Cardodo, 1977:14). This misplaced emphasis lends
itself well to grand theories of conspiracy, butdoes little to develop an % understanding of the complexities of Third Worldsocieties and their
relations to the developed world.
A third aspect of the dependeacy approach is its theoreticalstatue
and methodology. The dependency approach does not pretend to bea precisely - articulated model comprised_of formal and testablepropositions (Villamil,
1979). Rather it is more correct tosee the approach as, in the words of
Richard Fagen, a "way of framing" the problems ofunderdevelopment. The
approach-is."in reality a conceptual framework,a set of concepts, hypo- /41 mak thesized linkages, and above allan optic that attempts to locate end
1 1,- clarify a wide range of problems" (Fagen, 1977:7). Given the wide range
of complex problems and relationships whichthe approach attempts to
explore, isolating and narrowly defininga set of;variables and relationship,
12 does violence the dialectical interrlationships among the olementa of
dependency. iS a bias on behali of such formalistic models which,
while conforming well to North American ideas of social ence, hat;
resulted in the overqmphasis on the external faCtors ot dependency and the
neglect of the factors operating at the national level and the dynamic
movement that exists within the entire complex whole. As Cairdoso notes,
"In the struggle that takes placeamong the components there are no
'dimensions of variables' at stake, but ttnsions betweeninterests, values,
appropriations of nature and society, all of which are unequal and in
opposition- Therefore, when speaking of 'dependent capitalist developmsnt, 4 one speaks necessarily and simultaneously of socio-economics exploitation,
unequal distributioijof Income, the private appropriation of themeans of
production, and the subordination of some economies to others. On the
other hand, one also necessarily inquires inot conditions underwhich
this order of affairs is negatid" (Cardoso, 1977: 17).
Ais hopefully obvious, it is within the broad context of the dependency
approach that most of the substantiveconcerns of communication seholars
and- researdhers investigating media imperialismcan be located. If one
were to view the intellectual history of development thinking in the f970's,
one would conclude that the formulation of the media imperialism.approach
vat's, objectively speaking, developedas a corollary to the dependency model.
Nonetheless, in spiteof the great affinities that exist, thereseems tO / be-very little activeinteraction between social scientists doing work ..,
.within'the dependency approach and communicationresearchers doing work
on media imperialism. Those working in sociology, economics and political
science generallytend to be ignorant of the work ofcommunication researchers in thifi area 01(.1/en tend (0 dismiss c1 mmuul0A1ons nn an unimportant element in the overall structure4 01 dependency. Aside trom au occasional perfunctory citAtiou or quote from the works ot 'someone like
A.G. Frank, a dependency theorist whovic work, written in English, is generally more accessible but should not be taken as the definitive statement of the dependency.model (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1979), commun- ication researchers likewise rarely explicitly acknowledge what is happening elsewhere in developmental studies. Of course there are excep- tions. Social scientists such as Osvaldo Sunkel and Edmundo F. Fuenzalida, associated with the Institute of Development Studies at the University of
Sussex, show a keen appreciation and knowledge of the issues of culture and communication and attempt to relate such issues to the larger concrns of dependency (Sunkel and Fuenzalida, 1975, 1979). The work of Rita
Cruise O'Brien, also associated with the Institute of Development Studies, provides excellent examples of how an awareness of tte larger dimensions of dependency can inform a study of media imperialism (Cruise O'Brien,
1979). Salinas and Paldfin (1979) have applied a dependency analysis to a discussion of culture in a dependent society. Lee (1978),_basing himself primarily on the works of A.G. Frank, has used the dependency theory to discuss the theoretical.and methodological aspects of the work on media } imperialism. 1
Yet such work has made, as yet, little impact. It is unfortunately the case that many communication scholars, researchers and studentsaddress the topic of media imperialism with little or no acquaintance with the. dependency approach and, failing to see the broad context in which media imperialism falls, make numerous mistakes and misinterpretations that could II. enally have been avoided. !-;oc1 n1 ncientisln. on the ,,thisthand, tail
to see in the development 01 modelncommunlLatlonl media a ncw and ext.Lemely
important dimension of dependency that has grave economic,poleical and ibb cultural consequenceu. iThey fail tO appreciate that the prenentstage' of transnational capitalism is only possible in the context of the
development of new communications and information media with vast new
capabilities. Future developments in communications will play an important
role in determining the direction in which transnational capitalismwill
progress.
Yet, as this discussion is primarily directed towardcommunication
researchers, its emphasis is on how an appreciation of thedependency model
can aid the study of media imperialism. If progress is to be made in the
study of media imperialism, it is necessary,that thoselworkingin this 4 area-integrate their efforts into the larger ramework of dependency
analysis in order to draw upon its concepts, ulations and insights
to inform /their own work. brawing from\the above discussion of the
dependency model, the following brief comments and assessments areoffered
about the present state of work on media imperialism to demonstratehow
the dependency approach can both strengthen the work on mediaImperialism
and point to new issuel and areas which need to be explored.
As noted earlier, a major focus of,the media imperialism approach
has been on the role of transnational corporations ormedia intereets in
shaping comMunications between developed and Third Worldcountries. While
such a focus is, of course, a necessary corrective to earliermoaels of
communication and development and does perform the very necessarytask of
edtablishing the overwhelming dominant role of.transnational interestsin
15 world communientiona, such a locus uouetheless leads to au hil4altoJced
perspective that views meaia imperialism ds ptimatilv the .ou*quolitc of
1 tactors external to a dependent society. This tends to ignore. n4 noted
1 i
t . above, tile forces and factors operating on a national and localilOyet that
assist and react against the perpetuation of media imperiallsnnd, mor
importantly, it tendstoobscurcy the complex relationships and dynamics
that exist mmonmg the external and internal factors and forces. T4us it
is important that, under the ruble of the media imperialism approach,
studies of trananational communicators and media be complemented With
studies focusing on communications media and Interestsak the national
level. Such studies would dttempt to place the development and function
of the various communications media in thecontext of the class and power
dynamAcs that operate 'within a nation and in the context of that nation's
status as a dependent society. For example, what groups control the media
\ and to What ends are te communications andinformation mediaput; What role
° does a nation's media play in maintainingor changing the structure of
power in society,Such questiofis need to be explored and then linke0 to
an analysis of how that nation and its media is tied into the international
system of domination and dependence. The need for such studies;is all AL
the more important given the movementamong some Third World nations towards
the intervention of the state through the formulation of nationelcommuni-
cation policies. To many observers At the international level,\sucha
Movement represents a progressive move toovercome the consequenees of media
imperialism: But can such a general assessment be valid if practically
next to nothing is,known about the factors and forces thatoperate at the
hational level. Only wl an analysis at the national level can one hope
I. t,
11).
to determine wbother the communication policica of a particular country,
represents a progressive attempt co ,1/11 with the ptoblema oi media impetial-
tam or in just a reflection -of a minor realignment of Internal forces that
does not threaten transnational interests In any meaningful way.
Closely linked to the need for an analysts of internal factors and
the dynamics between stich factors and external forces and interest is the
need for an analysis of media imperialism as a historical phenomenon, that
is how it lets in particular historical situations and periods. The
media imperialism approach, tied as it is to the pressing concerns over
current problems, does not have murh to offer about the role of communications
media in relations of domination and dependence prilor to World War II. It
is important to note, however, that the concern over media imperialism by
:. communication scholars does not represent any radical new breakthrough in
study of comrminications, but more a revival of an older concern, pe rpe
flithe best represented in the work of Harold Innis, of the relations--that have
existed throughout human history between the development of communicatione media and the extension of domination by particular societies. -It is
thus important to place the study of media imperialism in a larger historical ' perspective, not only to give the apprbach more breadth and power, but also 4 to treveal the extremely complex interrelationships that have existed over
time, and exist at present, between the development And expansion of
communications media and the forces and factors associated with the relations of dominance and dependence. Only with knowledge of media imperialism as a concrete historical phenomenon operating in the larger context of domina- tion, can one hope to assess and formulate effective and meaningful strategies to over come it. lb.
A thitd concern that the media impetinlitaa AlTron,h melt addrena if
lt t4 to progressif. the Itique of iutrole While a );Icaldeal 1 he
cotteern over media imperialism is motivated bv a feat ot the cultuisi
donmeguences of/the transnational media of the threat that such media
poses to the integrity and the development o Iviable tuitional cultures in
Third Worl'isoeitti#s,- it in the one area where, aside trom anecdotal
accounts/little O'rogrese has been achieved in understanding specificaldy
the cultural.im act of transnationalmedia on Third World societies. All / too often the/institutional aspects of transnational media receive the major
attention wiie the cultural impact, whichone assumes to occur, goes
unaddrOssald inany detailed.manner. Generally a perception of the cultural / conseque(cesof the content of various media products is based on a view
of t mass media as primarily manipulative agents capable of having direct,
qum iated effects on the audience's behavior and world view. No one, of
coarse, can deny that the study of the cultural dimension of the media
u one of the most difficult areas of coMmunications,studiea: There is
very little consensus as to the basic formulatlion of the questions to be
asked, much less.agreement on methods and criteria. In recent years
th4re have been attempts to address within thecontext of a dependency
perspective the question ofculture, both in terms of the impact of-media
producta and in terms of.the broader impact that dependency has on the
overall structure qf human relationships.wtthin a dependent society (see,
for example Dagnino, 1973; Sunkel and Fuenzalida, 1975; Schiller, 1976
Mattelart, 1978; Burton and Franco, 1978; Salinas and Paldan, 1079). As
yet, however, no compelling formulation has-energed to guide future work.
Nonetheless the issue of culture must be addressed. One avenue of research 18 that shows hot4 of ptogreNa particularlyto communication ronearchotm im
the 1..nrk by liter .tu y ho tJand80111Ccoulluluilca( Ion researchers urhich
attempts to explicate the symbolic universe that la containedin the
content of tho mass media in dependent societies and relate thinto the
overall syntem.of dependency (Dorfman andMattelart, 1975; Kunzle, 1978,
Flora and Flora, 1978). Generally such studies demonstrate how the relations
of dominance dependence are reproducedwithin content of the popular
mdblia. Such works are useful to communicationresearchers in that they
establish a baseline for the content of the-Mediawhich enables researchers
to say something about the prdducts of the transnationalmedia in dependent
so&ieties. The neXt step - going froma discussion ofothe content of the
popular media to a study of its actualimpact on the lives and human,
xelationships of Third World populatIons is, of course an extremely
difficultstep that represents a major challenge.
Another neceseary direction of advance is broadeningthe study of
media imperialism froma primary Tocua on the mass media to'an analysis'
^of other qommunications and informationmedia and asslciated questions and
areas of concerns. In spite of the popular conception held bymany
communication researchers who address thetopic, media imperialism is not
simply the flow of particular productsof the mass media such as
television programs ornews stories between the developed countries and
Third World nations. Such a narrow view ignoresor obscures many important
dimensions of the process and miginterpretsthe basic concern. Fortunatel 0;, as shown by the works of Cruise O'Brien (1979) and Golding (1977)on the
transference of communication technology andprofessional models, and of
Schiller (1979) on transnational data flow,progressihas already been made IH
in dettning and analyinp. media impertAII!im with the qcope and hreadth
that the phenomenon requires. Such eitottu wait be conttnned and expanded. r Finally atuention must he paid to the development ot the media A imperialism approach as 0 heoretical endeavor. An noted earlier, the lack
of theoretical development that would match the empirical progress already
ft achieved in this area endangers the underlying critical outlook and concern
behind this work. Yet one should be vety cautious in the construction of
-Ttheoretical formulations. The basic question,which the medfa imperialism
approach should seek to explore both on a theoretical and empirical level
is: how does modern communication its media, its practices and ita pro-
ducts - relate to the larger structuxes and dynamics of dependency. The
theoretical formulation and the development of a specific methodology
should match the breadth o'f this basic concern. In approaching media
imperialism as,a theoretical proposition, one should keep well in mind the
earlier noted comments by Cardoso and others. An attempt to define both
dependency and mfdia.imperialism as p precisely articulated model consisting
of strictly defined variables and relationships totally distorts the
0 - basic notions behind these two areas.of work. AttemptA.ng to reduce the
notions of dependency and media imperialism to a set of narrow empirical
propositions replaces the.dynamism and organicism essential to.these ideas
with a sbt of formal, mechanistic relationships.
One must recognize that empirical social science as it has developed
today is not equipped and does notjlave the tools to study the phenomenon
of dependency or media imperialism in the manner in which these notions
were origina313. nceived. Unfortunately the response by some in the social
science communit to this problem has been to redefine dependency and media 20 J 19. k imperialism in order to make them amenable to the available empirical
teOniques. Thus for dome social scientiots dependency Js peen as a set
of correlations between data on tradepatterns between developed and Third 0 World countries and levels of GNP. For some communication researchers,
media imperialism is largely a question of how many episodes of Kojak are
shown on Bolivian television. While such information is no doubt ustiful,
and while not denying that there are numerous discreet aspects of both
dependency and media Imperialism that can be profitably examined in thia
manner, what is being studied through primary reliance on such narrow
measures not the phenomenon dependency or media imperialism. In the '4 attempt to move the study of media imperialisrA from detailed description
tO a concern with wider theoretical issues, it is necessary to eschew a
narrow conception of what theory is and what it is supposed to do. Itzis
vfar better to utilize the broad notion of the purpose and use of theory that
is best described in Fagen's words, that is seeing a "theory" of media
imperialism as "a conceptual framework, a set of concepts, hypothesized
linkages, and above all an optic that'attempt to loiNate and clarify a wide lk range'of problems" (Fagen, 1977:7). Hopefully in dais manner, both the
critical import of the notion of media imperialism and the complexity of
the phenonemon which such a notion atteMpts to describe will be maintained
and appreciated.
s.
r 21 Nit) IF S
1. noyd-Barret, O. (1.91 I ). _Media imper11 1 I SRI towardsan international framework tor Lhe analysis of media systemo in Curran, I., Gurevitch, M. and Woolacott, J.,-eds, Maus Communication and Society, Arnotd, Louthmr, pp. 116-115.
2. Burton, 3., and Franco, J.(1978). Culture and lmperialiam, Latin American Persfectiven vol V, no. 2, pp.
3. Cardoso, F.H. (1977). The Consumption of Dependency4 Theory in the Uniteil States, Latin Amel-ican Research Review voj. XII, no.3, pp. 7-24.
4. Chilcote, R.H. and Edelstein, J.C., (1914). Introduction: Alternative Perspectives of Development and Underdevelopment in Latin America in Chilcote, R.H. and Edelstein, J.C., Eds. Latin America: The Struggle with Dependency and Beyond, Schenkman, Cambridge, Mass. W-1-87.
5. Cruise O'Brien, R. (1979). Mass Communications: Social Mechanisms of Incorporation and Dependence in Villamil, J.J., Ed. Transnational Capitalism and National Development, Humankties Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, pp. 129-143.
6. Dagnino, E.(1973). Cultural and Ideological Dependence: Building a Theoretical Framework in Bonilla, F. and Girling, R., Ed, Structures of Dependency, Nairobi Bqpkstore, East Palo Alto, California, pp. 129-148.
7. Dorfman, A., and Mattelart, A.(1975). How to Read Donald Duck: Imserialist Ideology in a Disney Comic, International General, New York.
8. Fagen, R.R. (1977). Studying Latin American Politics: Some Implications of the Dependencia Approach, Latin American Research Review vol. III, no. 2, pp. 3-26.
9. Flora, C.B., and Flora, J.L. (1978). The Fotonovela as a Tool for Class and Cultural Domination, Latin American PersRectives, vol. V, no. 2, pp. 134-150.
10. Golaing; P. (1977). Media Professionalism in the Third World in Curran, J., Gurevitch, M. and Woolacott, J., Eds., Mass Communication and Society, Arnold, London, pp. 291-308.
11. Kunzle, D. (1978). Chile's La Firme versus ITT Latirk American Perspectives, vol. V, no. 2, pp. 119-133.
12. Lae, C. (1978). "Media Imperialism" Reconsidered: The Homogenizing of Television Culture, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 21
(1111111'111W t Pracicu.in a Ant t el art ,A . 97H) _ i 11 t Dependent SoCtetY, Latin Ameticsn Perspect_ive:i vol. V, no.2,pp.I 1-Vi.
_14 . Mat te lart.,A. (19 79) . t that ion al Corp) ra t ion a and t he Con t ro o t Culture Humanit les Press ,At 1 ant ic Highlands ,New Jersey
15 Hosco,V. and Herman, A.(1979) Rad i cal. :-;ocial Theory and t he Communi- cations Revolution, paper presented to the Fourth Annual Conference on 'a t.he Current State of Marx ist Theory, , University of Lou isvi I le, Louisvi le, Kent ucky. .
16. Nordenstreng, K., and Schiller, H.I. , Communication and National Development: Changing PerOpectives - Introductionin Nordenstreng, K., and Schiller, H.I., eds., National Sovereignty andInternational Communication, Ablex, New Hersey, pp. 3-8.
17. Portes, A. (1976). OnligeSociology of National Development: Theories a and Issues, Americanitournal of Sociology, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 55-85.
143. Read, W.(1976). America's Mass Media Merchants, Johns liopkins University Press, Baltimore.
19. Salinas, R., and Paldan, L. (1979). Culture in the Process of Dependent Development Theoretical Perspectives in Nordenstreng, K. and Schiller, H.I., Eds.,National Sftpreignty and International Communication, Ablex, New Jersey,pp. 82-98.
20. Sauvant, K.(1976). The Potential of Multinational Enterprises as Vehicles for the Transmission of Business Culture in Sauvant, K. and Lavipour, F., Edo, Controlling_Multinational Enterprises: Problems, Strategielar Counter-Strategtes, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 39-78.
A 21. Schiller, H.I. (1971). Mass Communication and American Empire, Beacon, Boston. \
22. Schiller, H.I. (1976). Communication and Cultural Domination International Arts and Sciences Press, New York.
23. Schiller, H.I. (1978). Computer Systems: Power for Whom and for What? Journal of Communication vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 184-193.
24. Subvert-Velez, F.A. (1979). The Mass Media as the Dependent Variable, xerox, Mass Communication Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
25. Sunkel, 0., and Fuenzalida, E.(1975). The effects of transnational corporations on culture, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex.
26. Sunkel, 0. andFuenzalida,E.F., (1979). Transnationalization and itg
National Consequences in Villamil, J.J., ed. Transnational Cuitalism and JINatrOnalt,Humanities Press,Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, pp. 6 -93. 27. Tullman, J.(1911). The Medla Ale American, CoiumbiA Prena, New York.
28. Valenzuela, .1.S. and Valenzuela, A., (1979). -ouernIzarionm and Dependence: Alternative Perspectives in the 5Study of Latin American Undeidevelopment tn Villamil, J.J., Ed. Transnational Capitalism and National Develoyment, Humanities Preng, Atlantic Highlands, New Jet-Hey, pp.ill-(i5.
.29. Varis, T.(19)3). International Inventory of Televisi(In Prokamme !Itructure and the Flow of Programmes Between Nations, University ot Tampere, Finland.
30. Villamil, J.J., (1979). introduction in Villamil, J.J., Ed. Transnational Capitalism and National Developme_nt_, Humaiities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, pp. 1-15.